Jump to content

Cam's in-depth review of Harry Potter 4


CamDawg

Recommended Posts

Well, I know that I really liked the movie, but especially the first hour, it was really disjointed.

 

Which is frustrating because I really did like the actresses and actors...and almost wish it was done as a TV mini-series, then it would have the time it deserves.

 

(Spoiler to come...though if you read the books, not much of a spoiler)

 

I don't really consider myself very politically correct, but when the girls of House Beauxbaton came in...I could almost feel the advance of women's rights go back 50 years. :-P

 

I much more liked the arrival of Sturmdrang...

Link to comment
I thought the film was nice enough, and I was actually pretty content about the amount of material they've been able to cover. Some things annoyed me somewhat (Dumbledore sucked, and Krum being a 20-something man was a bit weird), but overall I liked it.

20-something man? OK... they can't have done that, and left he and Hermione's relationship in. Because this is Harry Potter, not Lolita for kids. :)

 

If he was just played by a 20-something man, well, I think the actors for Ron, Hermione and Harry are all around 18 by now.

Link to comment

According to IMDB, Emma Watson (Hermione) is 15, Daniel Radcliffe (Harry) is 16, Rupert Grint (Ron) is 17, and Stanislav Ianevski (Krum) is 20.

 

But don't forget the TV/movie industry often have actors play characters much younger than they are themselves. For instance, during the first season of Buffy where the characters are supposed to be 15/16, only Nicholas Brendan (Xander) was 16. Sarah Michelle Gellar (Buffy) was 20, Alyson Hannigan (Willow) was 23, and Charisma Carpenter (Cordelia) was 27!

Link to comment
According to IMDB, Emma Watson (Hermione) is 15, Daniel Radcliffe (Harry) is 16, Rupert Grint is 17, and Stanislav Ianevski (Krum) is 20.

 

But don't forget the TV/movie industry often have actors play characters much younger than they are themselves.  For instance, during the first season of Buffy where the characters are supposed to be 15/16, only Nicholas Brendan (Xander) was 16.  Sarah Michelle Gellar was 20, Alyson Hannigan was 23, and Charisma Carpenter was 27!

 

Actually, I'm pretty sure Nicholas Brendan was older than that.

 

/me checks IMDB

 

By my maths, Nicholas Brendan was 26. (Born in 1971, show started in 1997).

Link to comment

I knew how old the kids were when I watched it, but I didn't find they looked too old for their roles. Krum is supposed to be a little older than Harry, Ron and Hermione, so I don't see where the problem is.

 

Also, I think the Buffy actors did a good job (at least when it comes to their age), IMO they didn't seem out of place.

Link to comment

Been to see it this weekend.

 

(very minor spoilers)

 

It was worth the money, though the ending was a bit boring and forced. (Geez, the school is in mourning, terrible news are being spread, and Harry, Ron and Hermione stand smiling and each other and exchanging phrases like: "But it's been an interesting year, right?")

 

What I liked was the ball scene, though Hermione's and Cho's dress sucked because of ruche, lace and other knickknacks. It could be much better, I think.

 

I also didn't understand the dragon bit. Okay, in the book she was chained, and wizards were ready with stunning spells. Here, she flies all around the castle, and nobody as much as says a word when Harry kills her! Both seemed unrealistic to me.

 

Pirate ship ruled. Snape overseeing homework ruled, too.

 

 

That's it. Hope to see Narnia kids next week.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...